It Depends On What The Definition Of Math Is…

It appears as though folks out in Iowa — or at least in what a correspondent of mine calls “The People’s Republic of Johnson County,” where the University of Iowa is located — define math and possibly science in a different way from the rest of us.

Consider, for example, this interesting article from today’s Daily Iowan, which begins by noting:

Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that men often perform better than women in science and math was refuted Tuesday when seven UI students and faculty members were recognized for their activism and dedication.

If I were even more churlish than I am I might question how “activism and dedication” could refute what Summers said or implied about a possible variation in the “statistical distributions of visuospatial abilities in men and women” (as stated in one of the Harvard faculty meetings by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, quoted by Harvard historian Stephan Thernstrom in a forthcoming article in National Review).

But never mind. Here’s a brief description of the seven recipients. If their accomplishments refute Summers, he must have said considerably more than has been reported in the extensive coverage of the controversy over women in math and science.

  • a “distinguished professor of nursing”
  • the University of Iowa ombudsperson
  • “an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology,” who was recognized not for scientific accomplishments but “for her effort in improving the status of women on campus, such as her work with reproductive rights.”
  • “a B.F.A. student in art”
  • “a Ph.D. student in the College of Education” who “aspires to continue her commitment toward HIV/AIDS stigmatization in Africa”
  • “a Ph.D. student in Spanish and Portuguese”
  • “an undergraduate majoring in financial management who hopes to someday own a spa.”

Take that, Summers!

Say What? (44)

  1. Richard Nieporent March 30, 2005 at 10:58 pm | | Reply

    This is from the Onion, right?

  2. mikem March 30, 2005 at 11:36 pm | | Reply

    LOL

    Now there is a Jay Rosen trained journalist if ever I read one. Advocacy journalism at its ‘best’.

    FWIW, for some reason I was able to read the article when I first clicked but now it requires registration, even after I deleted the cookie.

  3. DrLiz March 30, 2005 at 11:45 pm | | Reply

    Okay — that’s just bad writing/journalism, beyond being stupid. After all, even with the broadest definition of math and science, only three of these (nursing, obgyn, and finance) could arguable have anything to do with math and science. And of course, even if these women (I’m guessing they were women, based on the lead in) were given awards in math and science, that wouldn’t make it a valid argument against Dr. Summers.

    Dr. Summers (nor anyone else) did not say that all women can’t do math and science. He speculated on population differences, and anyone with any degree of statistics training should know that you can’t use individual examples to argue against population differences. After all, it wouldn’t be valid to say, “Women aren’t nurturing, because I know this woman who was a real b**** and beat her children.” In the same vein, you couldn’t use the example of a man who was very nurturing to refute an assertion of population differences between men and women in nurturing. (And I’m asserting no such difference, although it is a legitimate scientific question as to whether or not such differences exist!)

    Women (yes I’m one) who get real defensive about the SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION of any possible differences annoy me. These seem to be the same type of women who have no trouble asserting something like “men are more violent than women” (cause that makes women look good).

  4. Peg K March 31, 2005 at 8:56 am | | Reply

    And this is from a “professional member of the MSM”!

    Oh – I’d be embarrassed and shocked for the profession for this sort of writing … except I long ago gave up on expecting much.

    As a former philosophy grad student who studied logic and philosophy of language … all I can say is, “teach logic and SOME philosophy in high schools!!”

    It might not help – but at least it would give us some hope!

  5. Peg K March 31, 2005 at 8:58 am | | Reply

    Ooops – speaking of reading, I went too quickly and didn’t first appreciate that this is a student paper. Let’s hope that this “MSM reporter in training” cleans up her act if she does go into journalism as a profession!

    (And let’s hope I don’t speed read through my blogs *_*)

  6. mj March 31, 2005 at 9:39 am | | Reply

    This isn’t just bad writing. The author can’t think.

  7. actus March 31, 2005 at 9:59 am | | Reply

    “only three of these (nursing, obgyn, and finance) could arguable have anything to do with math and science. ”

    Arguably, the african HIV one could involve the math and science of epidemiology; the ombudsperson could be fighting off the unscientific attacks of the creationists; and the languages student could be doing linguistical work; and the art student could be doing computer visualizations.

    arguably.

  8. Stephen March 31, 2005 at 10:13 am | | Reply

    This is such an odd focus, since it is predmoninantly men who are underperforming in schools and on the job.

    Attended a lecture by Lionel Tiger a couple nights ago. Tiger is the author of “The Decline of Men.” Women outnumber men by about a 60-40 percentage in colleges. We would do a lot better to address this imbalance, and to understand why it occurred.

    Men, through goodwill, created a world that allows most people to work in a soft, safe environment. This is a faily recent invention. Warren Farrell writes well about this subject. Oddly, men have suffered most in this transition to a soft, safe work environment. This environment is much more inviting and comfortable for women.

    Tiger addressed the real issue. Women are doing so much better that they are having difficulty finding suitable mates. I covered this lecture in my Harleys, Girls, etc. weblog.

    The real issue at hand is how to bring men back into the educational and work environments. Men are being left behind at an alarming rate.

    Women do chose to work in different jobs than men. This will continue. If people do not have natural predispositions and abilities, explain why Filipino women so often choose, and so often dominate the nursing profession. They could be doing something else. When I ask them why they choose this profession, the answer is invariably: “Because I like to do something that serves and helps other people.”

  9. actus March 31, 2005 at 11:53 am | | Reply

    “Men, through goodwill, created a world that allows most people to work in a soft, safe environment”

    I thoght it was women that invented agriculture, while the men were off hunting and gathering.

  10. Stephen March 31, 2005 at 12:12 pm | | Reply

    The technology of the modern workplace is entirely the invention of men, as is the invention of modern contraception. Just as, before that, the technology that led to the mechanization of housework was the invention of men.

    Yes, this is evidence of the goodwill of men toward women.

    Regarding men as nefarious oppressors has become quite popular. If this is true, why have men constructed a modern world that so clearly better serves the interests of women? If men are the clever oppressors, why didn’t they build a world that put themselves at the top?

    You have completely avoided the issue. The reason women have, and continue, to prosper is that men knowingly and deliberately created a soft, secure work and social environment for women. Without this, women would be defenseless and confined to the domestic sphere.

  11. actus March 31, 2005 at 12:32 pm | | Reply

    “Yes, this is evidence of the goodwill of men toward women.”

    Hasn’t the amount of time spent on housework remained constant though the technology to do it was improving? Goodwill indeed!

    ” If men are the clever oppressors, why didn’t they build a world that put themselves at the top?”

    A wonder isn’t it? Why aren’t men at the top?

    “Without this, women would be defenseless and confined to the domestic sphere.”

    defenseless against who? men?

  12. Stephen March 31, 2005 at 12:55 pm | | Reply

    As I just explained, no men are not at the top. Seeing the world as a conspiracy of the strong to dominate the weak is, well, the sign of a weak mind. I know that it’s supposed to be a sign of intellectual sophistication, but it is not.

    Prior to the dramatic expansion of women’s role in the public sphere, no man expected to be protected in the workplace in the manner that women do. Men simply expected to take their lumps.

    Your statements, actus, are as usual sophistry and sloganeering without any noticeable substance. actus, you have deceived yourself completely into believing that these piffling Marxist sentiments of yours represent some form of original thought. You are as predictable as a cereal commercial. And just about as original.

  13. Stephen March 31, 2005 at 1:04 pm | | Reply

    Without reference to anybody, I’d like to state that the leftist focus on domination and submission as the primary issue in human behavior is profounded immoral. The insistence that we must focus on dominance and submission, particularly in the relationships of men and women, is viciously destructive. In fact, it is a sinful repudiation of the teachings of Christ, as well as a repudiation of just about every well developed moral and religious system on earth.

    This is probably the most important moral lesson of that most murderous of centuries… the 20th century. I’m not pointing this statement at anybody, but those who carp at us constantly about the need to focus on dominance and submission are in the service of evil.

  14. Scott March 31, 2005 at 1:09 pm | | Reply

    A minor point, but isn’t it true that Summers didn’t ‘suggest’ that men outperform women in science and math, but that it’s a fact? I thought his suggestions were for the possible causes.

  15. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 31, 2005 at 1:19 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Hasn’t the amount of time spent on housework remained constant though the technology to do it was improving? Goodwill indeed!

    Gee, actus, if you count putting clothes in the washer and then in the dryer as two hours of work because that’s how long the cycles take, and add an hour for running the dishwasher because that’s how long that takes, and count the time I spend watching the Roomba finding its way over the carpet as time I personally spend vacuuming, maybe you’re right.

    ” If men are the clever oppressors, why didn’t they build a world that put themselves at the top?”

    A wonder isn’t it? Why aren’t men at the top?

    actus, if I ran into two demographic cohorts who were exactly similar and equal in number at birth, and found that one died on average six or seven years earlier, got murdered three times as often, committed suicide five times as often, was imprisoned at vastly higher rates, was disproportionately represented in all the most hazardous jobs, and could be conscripted where the other cohort could not, I would have difficulty leaping to the conclusion you obviously do as to which is “at the top.”

    But we’re wandering from the point of the post, aren’t we, and John’s gonna bust us any moment now.

  16. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 31, 2005 at 1:24 pm | | Reply

    Scott, what Summers said was a fact, IIRC, wasn’t that men outperform women in the sciences, but that men outnumber women on science faculties. Not the same.

  17. Stephen March 31, 2005 at 1:31 pm | | Reply

    In re the above comments, I remember talking with a fellow musician (and confirmed commie) who had the “all men are rapists” obsession.

    I told him that men are many times more likely to be the victims of violence than women. This is true.

    His answer: “Yeah, but isn’t it other men who are commiting the violence?”

    I’ve never been quite able to grasp the logic of such statements, although they are uttered with the glee of a child who has discovered God’s truth. We are primates, evolved from animals whose families are ruled by the biggest and strongest male. The complaint here seems to be that the world should have been created perfect.

    Men could have decided to continue to rule the world by brute force. We did not. The reasons for this are a combination of self-interest and goodwill, but the end result is indisputable. Human males decided to share the power, and to protect the weak, and they created a society in which this is possible. And, yes, women owe men a debt of gratitude for having done this. Women need to recognize that the soft and secure world that men built for them does not serve the needs of most men as well as it serves the needs of most women.

    In my day-to-day life, I see the goodwill of women kicking in, as they realize that we need to rethink this world in a way that makes it more accessible to men and boys. A sea change in attitudes is on the horizon, because women want their husbands and sons to be happy and successful.

  18. actus March 31, 2005 at 1:36 pm | | Reply

    “Your statements, actus, are as usual sophistry and sloganeering without any noticeable substance”

    Indeed.

    “Prior to the dramatic expansion of women’s role in the public sphere, no man expected to be protected in the workplace in the manner that women do.”

    “manner that women do” might be true, but there were certainly protectionist sentiments in workplaces and the market before women entered “the public sphere.”

    “Without reference to anybody, I’d like to state that the leftist focus on domination and submission as the primary issue in human behavior is profounded immoral.”

    I’d say its got to do with a profound concern for the elightenment project of liberation.

    “count the time I spend watching the Roomba finding its way over the carpet as time I personally spend vacuuming, maybe you’re right.”

    I’m sure that’s right. But I don’t think thats how that statistic came up. I’m sure however, that women’s entry into the workplace — damn feminists — has lowered the total amount time spent on housework.

    “I would have difficulty leaping to the conclusion you obviously do as to which is “at the top.””

    Which ones have higher wages / wealth ?

  19. actus March 31, 2005 at 1:46 pm | | Reply

    “Men could have decided to continue to rule the world by brute force. We did not. Human males decided to share the power, and to protect the weak, and they created a society in which this is possible. And, yes, women owe men a debt of gratitude for having done this.”

    I don’t think anyone owes a debt of gratitude to those who cease using brute force to rule over them.

    Forgiveness for past transgressions, sure. Owing somethign to someone who has ceased to be an asshole? I don’t think so.

  20. meep March 31, 2005 at 2:08 pm | | Reply

    And which ones are more likely to be living on the streets? Just because, of the people who have jobs, the median salary is higher for men than for women does not mean men are “the tops”.

    The number is a crude comparison anyway, and when one breaks it down by profession and position one finds that women are paid the same for the =same=work=. It should not surprise anybody that a part-time preschool teacher does not make the same amount of money as an investment banker, say. And I’ve noticed there are lots more females as preschool teachers than males… and lots more male investment bankers than female ones. Guess which ones are paid more? But women aren’t choosing to be preschool teachers because of the money – and for many people, the money involved in investment banking isn’t enough to make up for the long hours.

  21. Stephen March 31, 2005 at 2:14 pm | | Reply

    actus, my wife referred to your viewpoint as “having a bitch with God.”

    Do animals commit a “transgression” by living in the natural way? So, would you send the dominant male chimp in a troop to jail? Re-education camp? Do you have plans to recreate the natural world in intellectual perfection? Reminds me of the great Onion spoof: “Nature is Sexist!”

    I will end my role in this discussion because it is hopeless. Marxism is dead and buried. It’s not coming back. Nor are any of the other romantic nostrums of the “progressive” (Marxist) left. Those who remain stuck in that dead past have become tragic figures, touting a cause everybody hates and nobody wants, while imagining themselves to be misunderstood martyrs. I don’t take any joy in this. It’s a waste of human life.

  22. actus March 31, 2005 at 2:30 pm | | Reply

    “when one breaks it down by profession and position one finds that women are paid the same for the =same=work=.”

    Thats wonderful! Do they get the same work?

    “Do animals commit a “transgression” by living in the natural way?”

    I don’t think they’ve got a moral compass, a post-enlightenment view of liberty and oppression. Nor do I think that men are animals, that this is an apt comparison.

    “Those who remain stuck in that dead past” …

    Hey, I’m not the one rejecting progress, and defining human relations on some brute conception of a ‘state of nature.’

  23. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 31, 2005 at 2:55 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    [me:] “count the time I spend watching the Roomba finding its way over the carpet as time I personally spend vacuuming, maybe you’re right.”

    I’m sure that’s right. But I don’t think thats how that statistic came up. I’m sure however, that women’s entry into the workplace — damn feminists — has lowered the total amount time spent on housework.

    So, the total amount of time spent on housework has stayed the same despite labor-saving technology, except, no, it’s dropped because women are working outside the home? Make up your mind, please. Either housework has taken up less time or it hasn’t. You can’t at once scoff at the notion that new technology (made mostly by men) has reduced the number of hours necessary for housework by claiming that the hours required are exactly the same, and then also claim that the number of hours devoted to housework has gone down because more women have salaried jobs.

    “I would have difficulty leaping to the conclusion you obviously do as to which is ‘at the top.'”

    Which ones have higher wages/wealth?

    Well, actually, as far as “wealth” goes, I think the majority of the wealthiest percentile of Americans are women, mostly widows of wealthy men. (Who, as I said, tend to die several years earlier than women do.)

    As for wages, I really think it depends how you look at it. What I see is a lot of men supporting a lot of women — a lot of men voluntarily donating a portion of their earnings to women. A lot of women living in a style they could achieve on their own only by working the insane hours of doctors and lawyers and investment traders and the like. That they can live in that style without having to do that sort of work is evidence that they’re discriminated against? I’d say quite the contrary.

  24. actus March 31, 2005 at 3:27 pm | | Reply

    “So, the total amount of time spent on housework has stayed the same despite labor-saving technology, except, no, it’s dropped because women are working outside the home? Make up your mind, please.”

    They both happened over different time periods. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Labor saving technologies of the 20’s and 50’s etc.. didn’t lower hte amount of time spent on housework.

    “As for wages, I really think it depends how you look at it. What I see is a lot of men supporting a lot of women

  25. Bill March 31, 2005 at 3:31 pm | | Reply

    Dr. Summers looked at the papers presented at the conference and threw out some food for thought to get the discussions started, in doing so he made the mistake of treating the participants as adults and scholars. He took a look at the “high powered job hypothesis” and the “different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search” and the “different availability of aptitude at the high end”.

    At one point, Summers took a look at a study which showed that in math and sciences, in the top 5% of both sexes, men outnumber women by 2 to 1 and extrapolated that to roughly the top 0.02% and arrived at a 5 to 1 ratio.

    Overall, one can say that Summers bent over backwards to be politically correct.

    Summers said, “So my sense is that the unfortunate truth-I would far prefer to believe something else, because it would be easier to address what is surely a serious social problem if something else were true-is that the combination of the high-powered job hypothesis and the differing variances probably explains a fair amount of this problem.”

  26. actus March 31, 2005 at 4:01 pm | | Reply

    ” in doing so he made the mistake of treating the participants as adults and scholars.”

    I’d say hte opposite, he didn’t treat them like scholars. He gave them a 101-level lesson on the issue, to a non-101 audience.

  27. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 31, 2005 at 4:14 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    [me:] “So, the total amount of time spent on housework has stayed the same despite labor-saving technology, except, no, it’s dropped because women are working outside the home? Make up your mind, please.”

    They both happened over different time periods. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Labor saving technologies of the 20’s and 50’s etc.. didn’t lower hte amount of time spent on housework.

    actus, what have the 20s and the 50s to do with your point? You’re arguing that the amount of time dedicated to housework has declined because more women work outside the home. How exactly is it getting done, then? By magic? Or are mechanical devices involved at all? If so, who designed them?

    [me:] “As for wages, I really think it depends how you look at it. What I see is a lot of men supporting a lot of women

  28. actus March 31, 2005 at 4:40 pm | | Reply

    “actus, what have the 20s and the 50s to do with your point? ”

    The idea that there were periods when machines made housework easier, but standards rose so that same inputs of time were required for housework. The idea that it wasn’t until women found something better to do with their time, like going into the workplace, that the amount of time spent on housework declined.

    “That, to me, looks like a substantial wealth transfer from men to women. Doesn’t it to you?”

    That to me would be reflected in equal wealth distributions between men and women.

    It still doesn’t really address the employment situation that some women are able to find a guy who is willing to transfer wealth to them. Doesn’t address the aggregate issue of who is on top, of who has the goods and is giving it away. Or the issue that women have to get married to achieve equality.

    Not to denigrate when you find someone to transfer wealth to you though. I’m all for that.

  29. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 31, 2005 at 5:24 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    The idea that there were periods when machines made housework easier, but standards rose so that same inputs of time were required for housework. The idea that it wasn’t until women found something better to do with their time, like going into the workplace, that the amount of time spent on housework declined.

    Ah, so “standards” rose and women had to work just as hard at housekeeping; but once women started working outside the home, “standards” mysteriously fell again? Who keeps these “standards”? It can’t possibly be women, can it?

    That to me would be reflected in equal wealth distributions between men and women.

    It still doesn’t really address the employment situation that some women are able to find a guy who is willing to transfer wealth to them. Doesn’t address the aggregate issue of who is on top, of who has the goods and is giving it away. Or the issue that women have to get married to achieve equality.

    actus, has it occurred to you that most men want to have children and to see them grow up and father them? And that there’s no way for them to do that other than via a long-term relationship with a woman? There’s an asymmetry that would be rather difficult to compensate any other way.

    And women don’t “have to get married to achieve equality”; they only have to work the same hours that unmarried men do, and they end up making just about what unmarried men do.

  30. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 31, 2005 at 6:02 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    I’d forgotten to address this little nugget:

    [ . . . ] it wasn’t until women found something better to do with their time, like going into the workplace [ . . . ]

    Can you explain to me exactly why working for money is better than managing your own home? The women who clean the houses of upper-class working women are “working women” themselves. I don’t see that they are doing “something better with their time” by cleaning other people’s houses for money, rather than their own for love. It’s just the same with teaching and with childcare: why is it demeaning to teach your own children without pay, but “the most important job in the world” to teach other people’s children for pay?

    Personally, I should say that managing a household is demanding and interesting and, yes, even exciting work. It’s certainly got its points over, say, manning a grocery-store checkout line. Which do you think is the “better thing to do with your time,” actus?

  31. actus March 31, 2005 at 6:12 pm | | Reply

    “Who keeps these “standards”? It can’t possibly be women, can it?”

    It might be the ones who are soooo kind and transfering wealth to them. I’m assuming standards went up because times remained the same and new devices allowed them to be more productive.

    “There’s an asymmetry that would be rather difficult to compensate any other way.”

    I’m not following, women need men to make babies too.

    “they only have to work the same hours that unmarried men do, and they end up making just about what unmarried men do.”

    I don’t doubt that if they do the same work they get the same pay. wonderful no?

    “Can you explain to me exactly why working for money is better than managing your own home? ”

    they’re not dependent on finding that husband for wealth transfer? But it was a bit tongue in cheek.

  32. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 31, 2005 at 7:07 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    [me:] “Who keeps these “standards”? It can’t possibly be women, can it?”

    It might be the ones who are soooo kind and transfering wealth to them. I’m assuming standards went up because times remained the same and new devices allowed them to be more productive.

    Well, now. That suggests all manner of questions. Why did “times remain the same”? Why did these “new devices” arise if no one particularly pushed for higher “standards”?

    And, then, why did the push for “higher standards” evaporate once women started working in large numbers outside the home? And in particular, what happened to the nasty guys’ push for rising “standards” then? Did the “standards” relapse? Or what? Are our houses less clean than they were in the 60s? Now that women are spending less time on housework? Or are they, paradoxically, even cleaner? (NB please don’t inspect my house, at least at the moment.)

    “There’s an asymmetry that would be rather difficult to compensate any other way.”

    I’m not following, women need men to make babies too.

    Nope, women need sperm to make babies, not men. There are lots of sources of sperm that do not involve living with a man for a couple decades. There are not a lot of sources of babies that don’t involve living with a woman for a couple decades. I’d think a single man (or a gay male couple) would find it very difficult to adopt. But a fertile woman who wants a child can probably conceive, and then she does has a child.

    [me:] “they only have to work the same hours that unmarried men do, and they end up making just about what unmarried men do.”

    I don’t doubt that if they do the same work they get the same pay. wonderful no?

    Well, yes, indeed. You think that, say, San Francisco Symphony players get different pay if they’re female? You’re daft.

    [me:] “Can you explain to me exactly why working for money is better than managing your own home?”

    they’re not dependent on finding that husband for wealth transfer? But it was a bit tongue in cheek.

    Well, whatever suits your particular sense of humor. I still find the whole business rather amazing.

  33. actus March 31, 2005 at 9:03 pm | | Reply

    “And, then, why did the push for “higher standards” evaporate once women started working in large numbers outside the home?”

    Women’s lib? It could also be that it wasn’t really a push for higher standards. Just that women used the more productive tools for the same length of time that they used the previous ones, since there was no job to go to.

    “I’d think a single man (or a gay male couple) would find it very difficult to adopt. ”

    If they were fit parents I’d hope they wouldn’t. But you’re arguing that men tradeoff wealth transfers to women for the opportunity to impregnate them?

    “Well, whatever suits your particular sense of humor. I still find the whole business rather amazing. ”

    The tongue in cheekness comes from the fact that there used to not really be a choice, and the choice came from women’s lib, not stephens’ paternalistic view that we nice men decided to bestow upon women the independence that they owe gratitude for.

  34. Michelle Dulak Thomson April 1, 2005 at 1:59 am | | Reply

    actus,

    It could also be that it wasn’t really a push for higher standards. Just that women used the more productive tools for the same length of time that they used the previous ones, since there was no job to go to.

    Query: Why were these “more productive” tools made, if not either to make things cleaner or to save time for the people doing the cleaning?

    Second query: If you didn’t have to go to your job, could you find nothing more interesting to do than toodling around with your spiffy new vacuum cleaner? And for that matter, do you really think most paid work is more interesting than anything you could contrive to do around the house? Hell, cooking is a lot more interesting — and has a lot more scope in it for individual creativity — than do most retail jobs I’ve had. Gardening as well.

    But you’re arguing that men tradeoff wealth transfers to women for the opportunity to impregnate them?

    No. I’m arguing that there’s an inherent biological asymmetry that means that men who want children are beholden to women, in a way that women are not beholden to men. You just have to keep that in mind when you look at relations between the sexes. Women have a power that men don’t. There is no way to “equalize” that, but there’s also no sense in pretending that it isn’t the truth.

    The tongue in cheekness comes from the fact that there used to not really be a choice, and the choice came from women’s lib, not stephens’ paternalistic view that we nice men decided to bestow upon women the independence that they owe gratitude for.

    So what’s the 19th Amendment, if not a gift from the “nice men”?

  35. actus April 1, 2005 at 10:56 am | | Reply

    “Why were these “more productive” tools made, if not either to make things cleaner or to save time for the people doing the cleaning?”

    There was a market for them among people making purchasing decisions would be my guess.

    “I’m arguing that there’s an inherent biological asymmetry that means that men who want children are beholden to women, in a way that women are not beholden to men.”

    I’m sure there are plenty of asymettries on both sides. I don’t know what that has to do with wealth transfers between married couples or pay inequities.

    “So what’s the 19th Amendment, if not a gift from the “nice men”?”

    An accomdation to “noisy women”? A triumph of the liberation ideology of the enlightenment? all sorts of things stephen doesn’t find in the state of nature?

    Its not a gift from nice people that they recognize inequality and correct it. It’s the least we expect from people, and we forgive them once they recognize the errors of their ways.

  36. Michelle Dulak Thomson April 1, 2005 at 8:59 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    My apologies for taking so long to respond; busy times here.

    [me:] “Why were these “more productive” tools made, if not either to make things cleaner or to save time for the people doing the cleaning?”

    There was a market for them among people making purchasing decisions would be my guess.

    Translation: People wanted to buy them, so they were produced. You know, I was really hoping for something just a little more specific than that. Clever of you not even to hint at the gender of the “people making purchasing decisions,” though.

    I’m sure there are plenty of asymmetries on both sides. I don’t know what that has to do with wealth transfers between [you mean “within”] married couples or pay inequities.

    Hard to know where to start here. All I was pointing out in the first place is that most women live with men, share their standard of living, share their income, share their homes. It’s not true that women, in the aggregate, are generally less well off in day-to-day life than men are. They occupy exactly the same spaces as men do, eat the same food, sleep on the same beds. They also live longer, get murdered a lot less often, get killed or maimed on the job less often, and all the rest of it that I posted already, but evidently all that matters to you is personal income.

    I think the reproductive asymmetries matter because I haven’t yet seen a victory for “reproductive rights” that involved men, except as sources of money. Seriously, actus, what are male “reproductive rights”? Are there any at all? Do they include the right to, say, sever all ties with a child at birth, as women can when giving up a child for adoption? I don’t believe so.

  37. Laura April 2, 2005 at 10:41 am | | Reply

    Women can no longer allow their children to be adopted without bio-dad’s consent. Sometimes the adoption is even undone when the dad finds out about it.

    The ultimate reproductive right is the right to decide whether to have sex or not. Aside from rape, that’s pretty symmetrical.

  38. actus April 2, 2005 at 12:03 pm | | Reply

    “Clever of you not even to hint at the gender of the “people making purchasing decisions,” though.”

    Maybe it was servants?

    “They also live longer, get murdered a lot less often, get killed or maimed on the job less often, and all the rest of it that I posted already, but evidently all that matters to you is personal income.”

    What matters to me is who is dependent on who, who has access to more power. I think a lot of glass ceilings have been busted and things have changed for women. And I don’t think that its any consolation to women that the way they can achieve parity with high earning men is to marry them.

    “Do they include the right to, say, sever all ties with a child at birth, as women can when giving up a child for adoption? I don’t believe so.”

    Men can put children up for adoption. What are the reproductive rights of men?

    Most of the ones they excert when they use birth control — Griswold allowed married men this right. It was later extended to the unmarried as well.

  39. Michelle Dulak Thomson April 2, 2005 at 2:01 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    [me:] “Clever of you not even to hint at the gender of the “people making purchasing decisions,” though.”

    Maybe it was servants?

    actus, in houses with “servants,” you do not find the mistress of the house doing the housework personally.

    [me:] “Do they include the right to, say, sever all ties with a child at birth, as women can when giving up a child for adoption? I don’t believe so.”

    Men can put children up for adoption.

    I imagine they can, if the mother dies in childbirth. But they can’t sever their financial responsibility to the child at birth as the mother can, can they?

    What are the reproductive rights of men? Most of the ones they exert when they use birth control — Griswold allowed married men this right. It was later extended to the unmarried as well.

    So you’re saying that “reproductive rights” = “the right not to reproduce.” Unless birth control fails, in which case a man, unlike a woman, has no way out of parental responsibilities if the woman involved chooses to keep the child.

  40. actus April 2, 2005 at 2:57 pm | | Reply

    “actus, in houses with “servants,” you do not find the mistress of the house doing the housework personally. ”

    nor do i find them with much purchasing power. Something tells me my sarcasm doesn’t come across very well.

    “But they can’t sever their financial responsibility to the child at birth as the mother can, can they?”

    No they can’t. The mother can do so for both of them though. But the father’s consent is needed in some states. In florida women who don’t know who the father is have to publish the descriptions of the sexual encounter in the press, as notice to such possible fathers. Some places aren’t so advanced as others.

    “So you’re saying that “reproductive rights” = “the right not to reproduce.””

    Of course. Thats the usual formulation you know. The decisional privacy interest in making personal choices of how and when to reproduce.

    “Unless birth control fails, in which case a man, unlike a woman, has no way out of parental responsibilities if the woman involved chooses to keep the child.”

    Makes for good public policy no? This way the woman who might not want the marriage road to wealth equality can still provide for the child.

  41. Michelle Dulak Thomson April 2, 2005 at 3:25 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    [me:] “actus, in houses with “servants,” you do not find the mistress of the house doing the housework personally.”

    nor do i find them with much purchasing power. Something tells me my sarcasm doesn’t come across very well.

    Sorry; I read too many mysteries set in early-20th-c. England. Servants did have “purchasing power,” in the sense that they were the people who actually dealt with tradesmen.

    In florida women who don’t know who the father is have to publish the descriptions of the sexual encounter in the press, as notice to such possible fathers. Some places aren’t so advanced as others.

    Your difficulty with this is what, exactly? You don’t think a man ought to have notice that he has a biological son or daughter? You don’t think it’s nice to advertise to the world that a woman has so many partners that she can’t even guess who the father of her child is? Might she possibly have tried to find out before offering the child for adoption?

    [me:] “So you’re saying that ‘reproductive rights’ = ‘the right not to reproduce.'”

    Of course. Thats the usual formulation you know. The decisional privacy interest in making personal choices of how and when to reproduce.

    You’re missing my point. “The right not to reproduce” is not at all the same thing as “making personal choices of how and when to reproduce.” Your summary of male “reproductive rights” begins and ends with a right to birth control. It doesn’t say anything at all about men who actually want children.

    Look: the downside of being female is that women can get pregnant and men can’t. The downside of being male is that women can get pregnant and men can’t. Only one of those downsides has been officially fixed by the Supreme Court.

  42. Anonymous April 3, 2005 at 12:26 pm | | Reply

    “You don’t think a man ought to have notice that he has a biological son or daughter?”

    Not if he doesn’t even have notice that he knocked up a woman, no. It shouldn’t be up to her to publish the fact that she had a one night stand for all to see.

    “Your summary of male “reproductive rights” begins and ends with a right to birth control. It doesn’t say anything at all about men who actually want children.”

    I thought we took care of that when I said that fit parents ought to be able to adopt. We also recognize surrogate motherhood agreements.

    “Only one of those downsides has been officially fixed by the Supreme Court.”

    I think both of them have been fixed. Men who want children can get them without finding a life partner.

  43. DrLiz April 4, 2005 at 8:26 pm | | Reply

    Okay, all this arguing over housework and nifty time-savers which may or may not have saved time has neglected one very likely reason that time-savers have not saved signficant total time devoted to housework:

    Houses are bigger and people have more stuff (as standards of living have increased). So yes, it takes more time to keep this much stuff up, although it would take us longer if we didn’t have the time-saving devices. Of course, without the time-saving devices, we’d be too busy to accumulate so much stuff.

    Yes, the washing machine makes washing clothes easier, but we own and wear more clothes that in the past (of course, admittedly, for many the sum of fabric in those many pieces of clothing doesn’t match the fabric in one dress from days yonder!)

  44. Imani April 19, 2005 at 6:42 am | | Reply

    I have to take strong issue with a thread that ran earlier: that men are primarily responsible for the “soft, sane” workplace and society that women now enjoy. If you think that anything other than women’s own agitating has brought most of the gains they’ve experienced, you’re living in a fantasy world. It might have been a male scientist that created the birth control pill, but it was only with women’s political activity that it became widely available and thought-of as a social imperative and cultural touchstone. Some of you, I’m afraid, seem to inhabit a rarefied domain where social movements don’t exist, and where dominant groups deign to give things to those beneath them simply because it is the “right” thing to do, not because anyone had to DEMAND it of them. And to the gentleman who argued this earlier, women do NOT owe men a thank-you for simply restoring to them that which they never should have been deprived in the first place. I suppose in a similar vein I should be “thanking” whites for ending slavery.

    Also, both men AND women have benefitted from workplace safety reforms. If the entrance of women into the workforce has had the ancillary effect of humanizing labor, I say huzzah. But if certain backlash theorists are to be taken at their word, men must have an inward desire for a more dangerous workplace as a venue in which to prove their manhood–“Fight Club” raised to the level of a general social theory. Even though there are plenty of opportunities to talk about the sterility and dullness of the modern workplace in gender-neutral terms (and would somebody PLEASE show me evidence that women have any greater a tolerance for boredom than men?), it seems that we have forsaken any kind of penetrating analysis of social structures for the superficial sexiness of the gender war.

    As a man, I resent the notion that the loss of my life or limbs, though regrettable, is in a sense “natural” and therefore acceptable in a way that the same fate befalling a woman wouldn’t be. I don’t expect to get maimed on my job, nor would I take any solace in having gained a “manhood” premium in such a grisly manner. It may be “soft” of me to say this, but my life is worth more to me than that. I don’t believe that most of the men in history who have died before their time did so out of some compelling, inner necessity. Rather, they did so to appease brutal, over-bearing social and political structures, aligning their inner desires accordingly. Tell me, if the gendered behavior we’re discussing is so ineluctably “natural,” why does it seem to require so much in the way of propaganda, behavioral reinforcement (positive and negative), cajolery, bribery (such as the benefits we give to soldiers), lavish rewards for those who comply as well as ostracism and penury for those who don’t? Would anything “natural” require such elaborate structures of enforcement?

    Imani

Say What?